Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 25459
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Satyendra Kumar Rajwade – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 5045 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Seema Verma, Uttara Srivastava
For the Respondents: Amandeep Singh, Aniket Verma, Jitendra Pali
The court directed the respondent authority to decide a pending application for compassionate appointment expeditiously within 120 days in accordance with the law.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Pending Application - Direction to decide - Where an application for compassionate appointment has remained undecided for a significant period, the court may direct the concerned authority to decide the application expeditiously in accordance with the law. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to decide the pending application for compassionate appointment.
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner immediately and to grant compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in favour of the petitioner.
ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, namely Deval Ram Rajwade who was working on the post of Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School, Karatma, Block Surajpur, died in harness on 05.09.2015. He would further submit that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities after fulfilling the eligibility criteria for grant of compassionate appointment on 27.01.2016, and his application was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur to Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, but till date no decision has been taken; thus, he would pray that direction may be issued to respondent No. 4 to decide the pending application of the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that according to the prevailing policy, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. He would submit that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2015 and the petitioner survived for a considerable period; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard.
5. Taking into consideration the application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 27.01.2016 and the same has not been decided yet, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to decide the same expeditiously within a period of 120 days, in accordance with law.
